The first session of the day in the BHoC was very productive. Two bills were written during an unmoderated caucus, proposing things that everybody was able to agree on: no hard borders betweens both Irelands or in the Irish Sea, protecting Northern Ireland’s sovereignty and utilizing technological solutions in order to solve the border problem, in a budget-friendly way. As both bills had very similar ideas, they both passed almost unanimously. By the end of the first session, some disagreements surfaced: how fast should the technologies be implemented? Should a 2nd referendum for Brexit take place?

These disagreements, especially the second one, really came to a halt when the Crisis arrived, during the council’s 2nd session. Brexit was frauded: Boris Johnson, Arlene Foster, Gavin Robinson and Julian Smith were involved. In addition, terrorist attacks by nationalist Irish people, who believe Ireland is being oppressed by England, have been taking place, and the council’s greatest fear materialized: the Troubles are back. Terrorists tried to explode the British Central Bank, causing the disappearance of 70 million pounds. This crisis caused a long discussion regarding whether the council’s first measure should be to punish and remove the politicians involved with the fraud from the committee or to punish and contain the terrorists. 

The responsible politicians defended the second option, diverging the focus from their blame and claiming that punishment should come later, but first peace should be guaranteed. The rest of the council, angry at the fraud committed, wished to remove involved members from further procedures. It was also debated whether Jeremy Corbyn, after stating about the land division “we will do even if we cause blood spillage”, promoting terrorist attacks, should or not apologize. 

In the 3rd section, bills to solve the crisis were written. It was decided that an online referendum will take place, as a personal one would be dangerous, considering current terrorist attacks. Also, attempts to mediate and propose a ceasefire with the IRA (Irish Republican Army) will take place, and police force will be used against terrorists if necessary. A thorough investigation will take place on the fraud, and everyone found responsible will, in a further moment, be punished according to the law, leaving the parliament or being imprisoned as the tribunal court sees fit. Also, those accused will publicly apologize, in order to make an effort to calm the population and installate peace, and Jeremy Corbyn’s affirmation shall be clarified as well. By the end of the day, those were the solutions that the committee found to deal with the crisis.

On the second day of the Human Rights Council in the HUMUNITED, delegates debated censorship and whether democracy must adapt to cultural contexts. Iran defended its model as rooted in national values, while the U.S. argued that freedom and democracy are universal, not Western, concepts, offering aid only to aligned countries. This sparked strong reactions from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and China, who rejected foreign interference and emphasized respect for cultural identity. Myanmar and India focused on internal development first, while the UK and Saudi Arabia promoted education, security, and cooperation without imposing external models. The session ended with intense negotiations as delegates began drafting the first working paper.

After presenting the first working paper, delegates began initial discussions on the second agenda topic. Vietnam supported peaceful, regional cooperation; Pakistan defended a gradual, people-based democratic model; and Myanmar stressed that democracy must reflect each country's unique context. The debate was just beginning, with many views yet to be explored.

The debate on the second agenda topic brought diverse views. China suggested flexible democratic models and regular national reports for transparency. The U.S. proposed a UN program on election integrity, leading to a heated exchange with Myanmar. The UK defended free media and cultural respect, while India called for partnerships to address human rights concerns. Countries like Iran, Indonesia, and Pakistan stressed that democracy must align with cultural and religious values, warning that ignoring these could lead to deeper conflicts. 

A sudden crisis interrupted the session as delegates were informed of a paramilitary group behind the assassinations of the leaders of North Korea, Iran, and Afghanistan—now reportedly targeting China's president. The revelation sparked unrest across Asia and opened space for the affected countries to speak. China condemned the violence and emphasized national security, while North Korea called for strict control of the population to support the military. Afghanistan expressed concern and pushed to expel the group, facing criticism from the U.S., which supported the group's democratic goals. Turkey aligned with the U.S., prompting backlash from Afghanistan. Other nations, like Saudi Arabia, Thailand, India, and Pakistan, also voiced their views, revealing deep divisions over how to respond to violence and protect human rights.

During the remainder of the session, heated discussions continued around the best path toward tangible change. While there were tensions between countries advocating punitive measures and those emphasizing restorative approaches, all delegates recognized the urgent need for collective action.

A draft resolution began to take shape, centered around four pillars: mandatory anti-racism education, community engagement initiatives, psychological support for victims, and school accountability mechanisms. Proposals included implementing cultural competency training for educators, establishing anonymous reporting channels for discrimination, and forming student-led diversity councils within schools.

Countries also debated whether international oversight, perhaps in the form of a global committee monitoring school inclusivity, would be viable or overreaching. While the UK, expressed concerns about national autonomy, others welcomed the idea, seeing it as a way to share best practices and hold systems to higher standards.

Ultimately, the Council concluded the session on a note of unity, with delegates agreeing to reconvene for a vote on the final resolution draft in the following session. A strong message was sent: the JUNICEF Council would not let this case become just another headline. Instead, it would be a turning point toward building a global educational culture rooted in dignity, equity, and respect.

In the third session of the Historical Council, delegates discussed the future of Palestine in 1947. The main issue was whether to divide the region and create a Jewish state or find a shared solution. The delegation supported the creation of a binational state, where Jews and Arabs would both have equal rights and official languages. The French delegation opposed this, saying the idea would not last and could lead to more violence. France also said that in this system, the Jews would be the minority and would not be included, while the majority would be Arab and would become advantageous, when everyone should have the same rights. Brazil remained neutral, saying peace was the priority but questioning if unity between hostile groups was realistic. The United Kingdom delegation faced criticism for its role during the mandate in Palestine, while the Polish delegation called for a proper government system with UN support.

Delegates spent a lot of time discussing draft clauses that became the base of the official Working Paper. These included ideas on immigration, education, minority rights, and how the new government should work. The Egyptian delegation supported a shared state with equal protection. Iran suggested a multicultural education system organized by the UN. Pakistan defended Muslim rights, and the Philippine delegation proposed equal quotas for Jews and Arabs. The U.S. delegation warned about rising violence and called for strong protections for Jewish people. These ideas helped shape the clauses. One of the main proposals in the document is to create a Federal Democratic Binational Secular Republic of Historic Palestine.

The debate intensified after a crisis was announced: a terrorist attack against Jewish immigrants left over 100 people injured. The Haganah group was blamed, and the UK was accused of failing to prevent the attack. A scandal broke out after reports of British officials taking bribes from Zionist agents. The U.S. showed support for the Jewish people. India and several Arab countries condemned the UK’s actions. A new clause was proposed to demilitarize the region and fight extremist groups, with UN forces supervising the process.

The session ended with a lot of disagreements between the countries but some progress. While some countries like the USSR tried to get unification, others like France and the UK stayed cautious. Egypt, Iran, and Pakistan defended the Arab position, while the U.S. and the Philippines supported Jewish protection. The delegates agreed that the UN should stay involved to ensure peace. Debates about land division and leadership will continue in the next session.

The second day of debate in the UN Women Council advanced into deeper discussions surrounding the structural infortunes of gender inequality in the Middle East. Delegates examined the role of religion, conflict fragility, economic insecurity, and underdeveloped infrastructure in shaping family and marriage laws. The conversation, again, revealed diverging views: while countries such as Germany argued that human rights are universal and non-negotiable, others like India, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan stressed the importance of respecting cultural and religious traditions. Poland proposed the reinterpretation of sacred texts from within, emphasizing the complexity of aligning religious principles with evolving social needs.

Countries like Yemen and Pakistan highlighted their current challenges and asked for international support to rebuild basic institutions and promote girls' education. Saudi Arabia pointed out ongoing domestic reforms, such as increasing female participation in the workforce and adopting improved approaches to societal structures, while firmly rejecting any reinterpretation of sacred texts like the Quran. Meanwhile, the Netherlands and Germany raised concerns about how to ensure rights for those who wish to live outside of religious norms. Many delegates acknowledged the difficulty of finding reforms that both protect women and respect national identities.

In addition, two working papers were introduced. The first, supported by a wide alliance, emphasized voluntary reforms, post-conflict support, regional dialogue, and economic investment inspired by Vision 2030. The second paper focused on specific proposals, including a State-Led Review Mechanism (SLRM), the digital justice platform Najiz, and the creation of the NGO WEPO, with the purpose of reaching and protecting women in marginalized communities. It also introduced the idea of a National Law Alignment Framework to identify legal unregulated areas related to harmful practices like child marriage and guardianship.

In the final session, a humanitarian crisis was announced: trafficked Syrian women had been discovered in several countries, including Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, Saudi Arabia, and the USA. Delegates reacted with urgency, and through an unmoderated caucus held informally on the floor, a crisis resolution was drafted. It called for formal apologies, UN-supervised fines proportional to GDP, and immediate humanitarian aid coordinated by the IOM. It also proposed a framework to investigate the involved nations and monitor rescued women’s protection, rights, and psychological recovery. The Council demonstrated its capacity to move from debate to action, even while deeper tensions remained uncertain.

The second day commenced with a moderated debate, during which the Colombian delegation initiated discussions by offering assistance to the Caribbean nation through the provision of drones to deliver medications to those most in need. The Haitian delegation responded shortly thereafter, reiterating that the primary focus should not be on drones at this juncture and emphasizing that other critical aspects must be addressed. Another noteworthy development was the Swiss Confederation’s offer of financial aid to Haiti, accompanied by an appeal for additional international support. The United Kingdom delegation underscored the importance of swift and effective solutions and proposed the establishment of a security zone to ensure that the most vulnerable individuals have access to a basic level of comfort and safety.

Following a brief recess, the delegations reconvened to further deliberate on the items outlined in the agenda. A period of intense debate ensued regarding whether one or two working papers should be drafted. Subsequently, two unmoderated caucus sessions were held, during which the first working paper was developed.

After lunch, the council was confronted with a crisis involving money laundering, ongoing gang warfare, and a worsening cholera outbreak. According to the text presented, a significant money laundering operation was uncovered in Haiti, whereby resources intended for humanitarian aid were being diverted by corrupt organizations and gangs that exert control over the country. These gangs maintain both regional and international connections, including ties with arms traffickers in the United States. Meanwhile, the cholera crisis continues to escalate, affecting neighboring countries as well. Despite facing public criticism, the United Nations was also implicated in corruption. The reduction of international support—driven by the rise of global populism—has further exacerbated the situation, leaving the Haitian population increasingly desperate and vulnerable.

In the first session, the delegates were working on the working paper about their discussion, which was about inspections of the IAEA in the participant countries and only P5 nations should produce nuclear weapons but only when necessary; however, other countries argued for nuclear rights. Adding to tensions, Israel accused Iran of having nuclear weapons, but investigations confirmed Iran had only imported uranium from China.

In the next session, a crisis happened, in Kazakhstan, a terrorist group seized three Soviet-era warheads and took six IAEA inspectors hostage, threatening to detonate one within 72 hours. U.S. drones confirmed the warheads were smuggled, but their origin was unclear. Agents from Pakistan, Israel, and Russia found some of the weapons in Belarus, sold on the black market. Their governments denied authorizing these missions, further complicating the crisis, therefore, these agents were illegal in the country.

The delegates solved this crisis by suggesting that the UN Security Council proposed a military operation to rescue hostages, an IAEA investigation into Belarus' weapons, an international and neutral trial for terrorists and rogue agents, and involvement of the ICJ if states supported terrorism. They also called for transferring Kazakhstan’s remaining Soviet arsenal to Russia, financial aid for affected nations, and coordination with the CTBTO. This crisis highlights the urgency of global cooperation to secure nuclear materials and prevent conflict.

In the next sessions, the delegates divided themselves into two working groups to do the working paper addressing the first topic on the agenda, one led by the Islamic Republic of Iran, Cuba, and the Republic ofIraq, and the other by the remaining delegations. Following the introduction of amendments and subsequent voting, the delegations successfully reached a consensus that accommodated the interests of all nations involved.

Following the announcement of a crisis that accused the United States and the United Kingdom of funding and supplying weapons to the terrorist organization Al-Shabaab, the unmoderated caucus descended into disorder. Delegates were seen standing on chairs, shouting, and even striking the gavel. Amid the uproar, the U.S. delegate declared that their country “mediates the world.” In response, the Egyptian delegate intervened, silencing both U.S. and U.K. representatives by asking, “Can we all agree that we don’t listen to them anymore?”

As tensions escalated, two working papers were drafted. Upon presentation, they prompted immediate objections from the United States and the United Kingdom, both requesting vetoes of certain clauses. The delegates argued that such measures would negatively impact their nations and, by extension, global stability — particularly with regard to trade sanctions and the world’s dependency on oil and natural gas. The Russian delegation, however, challenged this reasoning, claiming that the global dependency stems from the deliberate undermining of other countries’ productive capacities. Based on this argument, the vetoes were not granted.

In the general debate on the agenda topics, delegates made remarks ranging from philosophical references to Socrates to controversial comparisons involving the Nazi regime. Iran faced repeated accusations of supporting terrorism, while Somalia and Yemen were criticized for alleged corruption. France’s intentions were also questioned, with delegates expressing skepticism about its credibility in the committee. Despite a shared commitment to supporting conflict resolution, several delegations noted that countries like China are better positioned to contribute due to their abundant resources. Conversely, nations such as Eritrea were seen as having limited capacity to assist — leading some delegates to call for a more equitable and collective approach to international cooperation.

On the second day of HUMUNITED 2025, the JUNEP Council was held with the purpose of discussing and proposing effective solutions to one of the most urgent global environmental challenges: plastic pollution in the oceans. However, a new crisis has intensified the situation, demanding immediate international action.

A genetically modified bacterium, Ideonella sakaiensis, designed to break down plastic, is now releasing a toxic compound that harms marine life and threatens coastal communities. While the full effects on humans are still unknown, rising health concerns are spreading worldwide.

The crisis has divided opinions. Countries like Germany, Vietnam, and Canada are calling for thorough investigations, while others, such as Japan and China, advocate for international cooperation over assigning blame. A global fund was proposed, allocating 20% to investigations and 80% to solutions, highlighting the urgent need for action to contain the damage and prevent further consequences.

In response, the Council emphasized the need for transparent data sharing, ethical scientific oversight, and stronger environmental safety protocols to guide future bioengineering initiatives. A working group was formed to draft an international framework that ensures both innovation and precaution go hand in hand, aiming to restore trust and ecological balance in the face of this evolving crisis.

On the second day of ECOSOC’s debate on the energy transition, a series of intense discussions took place on the socioeconomic challenges faced by oil-dependent nations. As countries like Algeria, Venezuela, and Nigeria called for gradual transitions and greater international support, tensions rose between developed and developing nations over the pace and fairness of the energy shift. The session also witnessed a diplomatic crisis over the Strait of Hormuz, highlighting the complex link between energy security and geopolitical instability.

Delegates from Germany and France led calls for urgent action to support vulnerable nations, with Germany proposing “green entrepreneurship” and France emphasizing job retraining for workers in affected sectors. China advocated for international green job training exchanges, while the USA promoted its experience in transitioning to renewable energy. Algeria, however, pushed back, arguing that energy transitions must be gradual to avoid economic collapse, citing high oil prices and the collapse of global economies.

The debate took a sharp turn as the USA and Iran clashed over the recent blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a crisis that has disrupted global oil markets. Venezuela and Russia aligned with Iran, criticizing US actions, while Germany called for a diplomatic solution. The crisis underscored the intersection of energy policy and geopolitical tensions, with China and France pushing for a peaceful resolution and emphasizing the urgent need for cooperation to maintain energy security and climate goals.

As the crisis unfolded, delegates worked on two competing working papers: one focused on supporting oil-dependent nations, and another that took a harder stance against Iran. The committee is expected to continue discussions on finding a diplomatic solution to the Strait of Hormuz crisis while exploring ways to ensure a just energy transition. The looming question is how to balance immediate energy security with long-term climate goals in an increasingly polarized world.